We mean those with whom we have
had recent discussions on the nature of
our Redeemer and of the redemption
which he has effected. These contemporaries
seem to be puzzled by the
six simple questions recently propounded
to them in these columns, and doubtless
feel annoyed because of the weakness
of their theories, which will not
permit an answer to them without showing
to all their readers their untenable
position, and in fact that their theories
make void the plain statements of Scripture
relative to our ransom and purchase
with the precious blood of Christ
--which scriptures they quote frequently
and thus prevent the lameness of
their theories from appearing too
prominent.

These theories, however different in
some respects, are alike in that they
ignore the ransom, which we have already
noted as being the coming and
fast-growing form of infidelity among
Christians, which Satan seems to be
stirring up in these last days. Another
paper has recently been started in defence
of this no-ransom theory, called
The Millenarian. This is the third
paper in advocacy of this error started
within a year and a half. Our Adversary
seems able to supply both talent
and money for the promulgation of
such blasting and blighting heresies.
But his power shall continue only for a
little season--"He knoweth that he hath
but a short time," for

"He who was slain on Calvary's mountain,
Soon shall reign a thousand years."

Now, since they cannot answer our
questions in a straightforward manner
without showing their theories in their
true light, they endeavor to turn the attention
of the flock away from the real
issue--the importance of the truth inquestion--by seeking to enlist sympathy,
as though they were being personally
abused. And one throws out
the inference that it is a martyr, and
[R495 : page 6]
that it is more difficult to hold its peace
than to reply, but says it will answer
the question, on which they have already
been deliberating for months--intime.

We answer, that if a man be suspicioned
of any crime and be questioned
regarding it, if he is innocent, it is his
duty to state the facts, to answer the
questions, that thereby he might clearhimself. And what would be thought
of such a one if, instead of answering,
he should claim that he could answer,
but thought it more noble and martyr-like
to stand accused, merely claiming
that the accusation was untrue, but refusing
to give the evidence and so clear
himself by plain answers? We answer,
that to the mind of every right-thinking
person he would stand justly condemned
as guilty. Who would crown such a
one with a martyr's laurels? But if
such a course be condemned in an individual
matter, what shall we say of a
periodical which attempts to be a religious
teacher, a feeder of the flock of
Christ, who is accused of mixing poison
with the children's meat?

Regarding personal attack, we would
say that we have been no more personal
than were our Lord and the Apostles,
and that it would be impossible to so
point out the error and danger that all
the flock may be able to recognize it,
without plainly mentioning the periodicals
containing those errors. The
names of the editors have never been
mentioned, though if it were necessary
for the truth's sake, we should not for a
moment hesitate. Our personal solicitude
for these is as great as for any of
the flock, though we greatly fear the
baneful tendency of their present course
and error on themselves. It is a fearful
thing to deceive others, but it generally
begins in self-deception and then progresses
in blindness. We believe that
all these errors originate with the great
Adversary; therefore we claim that "We
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, against spiritual wickedness
in high places"--places of influence.

We have mentioned pointedly your
Adversary (the devil) and those whom
we believed to be forwarding his cause
by publicly spreading error. His servants
ye are to whom ye render service.
(Rom. 6:16). Among others we have
mentioned Mr. Ingersoll, the out-spoken
denier of the RANSOM, and Mr. Henry
Ward Beecher, The Day Star, and TheWorld's Hope, and The Millenarian,
as those who quoted scriptural phrases
and arrayed themselves thus in a "garment
of light," while they really made
void the doctrine of the Ransom by
their unscriptural theorizing. These are
all public teachers, and the flock of
Christ could in no way be guarded
against their wily twisting of Scripture,
without mentioning them so as to be
unmistakably understood. The truth,
and especially this truth, the Ransom,
never needed more to have the sword
of the Spirit unsheathed in its behalf by
every true soldier of the cross than
now, and by the grace of God we hope
to fight a good fight until called higher.

And now, relative to their claim that
they will answer these six troublesome,
yet simple questions, in time, we feel
that it will be in the interest of truth
for us to tell their readers how we interpret
this: It means that when they
think their readers have forgotten the
points of the questions and their relationship
to each other, then they will
take them up one at a time, and devote
a whole article to each little question,
weaving the web of sophistry (false
reasoning) around them, so that when
they have read it none will be quite sure
just what is meant. Their expressions
will be so carefully guarded that none
could find a single quotation which
would show their true position. We
thus judge from the past.

We protest. This is not the right
way to deal with any subject, much less
a religious one. A child, a babe in
Christ, who had nothing to cover or
conceal, nor any theory to sustain, should
be able to answer those questions in one
column or less. That the fundamental
character and simplicity of these questions
may be remembered, we repeat
them here, at the same time declaring
that by the grace of God we will agree
to answer any six questions which they
will propound on the fundamental doctrines
of Christianity. And on any more
advanced subject we are willing to give
A REASON for the hope that is in us
with meekness, in our OWN WORDS.

The questions were as follows:

(1.) Why did Jesus die?

(2.) How does it affect our sins?

(3.) How did he put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself?

(4.) In what way did he give "himself
a ransom [Greek, antilutron--an
equivalent price] for all"?

(5.) In what way was he a "propitiation
[satisfaction] for our sins"?

(6.) In what sense were we "boughtwith a price"?

The answer to these six simple questions
would promptly decide the matter
of our contemporary's faith or lack of
faith in the ransom. It must not forget
that it is on trial before its readers, and
it must have little confidence in the intelligence
of its readers to suppose that
they will not discern the weakness of
its policy. In the light of facts we can
call its dealing nothing but policy--such
as is indeed common among secular papers
on political subjects, but which
should not be once named among you
as becometh saints.

The few changing expressions of our
contemporary in its recent issues we
cannot regard as an indication of reform
on this subject. We could have
no confidence in a reform unaccompanied
by an acknowledgment of past
errors. The retraction should be as
public as the original statements. This
appears to be God's unalterable law.
Until it shall make a full, clear, unequivocal
statement of its position, such as
the answer to the questions propounded
would involve, we must question
whether the recently changed expressions
mean anything more than that it
is more guarded as to its phraseology
since our criticism.

We quoted from its teachings in our
last, and now we give some extracts
from its very first issue (October, 1882)
as proof that its teachings did deny that
the Lord bought them; did deny that
we were bought with a price, even the
precious blood of Christ. Under the
heading ATONEMENT it sneers at the
doctrine of substitution, claiming that
it places our Father "in the UNGRACIOUS
attitude of demanding the fullpayment of the sinner's debt before he
will forgive." Is this an attempt of our
contemporary to appear more gracious
than Jehovah, who says he "will by no
means clear the GUILTY," and who for
this very reason "sent his only begotten
Son that he should BE A PROPITIATION
[satisfaction] for our sins," and who
"by the grace [favor] of God tasted
death for every man"?

Our contemporary continues to sneer
at what it terms "the gross injustice of
transferring the consequences of sin
from the guilty to the innocent, allowing
the innocent to suffer instead of the
guilty." We answer that we are thankful
that Satan has led us into no theory
which would incline us thus to contradict
the word of His testimony who
bought us, who redeemed us, who "died
the just FOR the unjust." My soul,
come not thou into their secret who call
good evil, and who find it needful to
traduce the Almighty's character for
justice in order to prove their theory,
that we were not bought with a PRICE;
which they claim has too much of a"commercial idea" to suit their aesthetic
tastes and theories, and who deny
and make light of those precious words:

"Jesus died and paid it all,
All the debt I owe."

Now, hear its own statement of its
faith. Our contemporary continues:
"Repentance--complete change of heart
and life--and forgiveness are the Lord's
cure for the difficulty [sin]; and when
this is accomplished 'the enmity' [see
Eph. 2:16] is surely destroyed and the
man RECONCILED TO GOD." No one
can mistake this statement; and what is
it? It is another and a different gospel
from what the Apostles delivered. (See
Gal. 1:8.) THIS gospel has no need of
the death of Jesus as our ransom from
[R496 : page 6]
the wages of sin. It has no place for
Rom. 5:18,19: "Therefore, as by the
offence of one, judgment came upon all
men to condemnation; even so, by the
righteousness of one the free gift came
upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience
of one shall many be made righteous."
It claims that repentance is the thing
which saves men--that if they repent
God will FORGIVE, and it calls this the
Lord's CURE. We call this a man's
remedy and theory, and in the name of
Jehovah declare that

"These for sin could not atone;
Christ must ransom, he alone."

This was the "Apostles' doctrine," viz.;
that Jehovah laid upon Him (Jesus) the
iniquity of us all--and "by His stripes
we are healed.

Notice again that in the above statement
of its faith, our contemporary says
that repentance and forgiveness destroy
the enmity, but note how contrary
this is to the teaching of Paul, who
says that the enmity was destroyed by
the cross. It declares further that man
is reconciled to God by repentance and
forgiveness, but Paul says: "When we
were enemies we were RECONCILED TO
GOD by the death of His Son"
(Rom. 5:10.)

Truly the justice, rather than the
love of God is manifested by His rewarding
sin with death--but the LOVE,
the great love wherewith he loved us,
even while we were yet sinners and under
proper condemnation of his just
laws, is manifested by the death of his
Son to release us from that just condemnation
--opening up a way by which
God could still be just yet the justifier
of sinners who believe in Jesus as their
ransom. "In this was manifested the
love of God toward us, because that
God sent his only begotten Son into
the world, that we might live through
him" (1 John 4:9).

The child of God who can feel an
indifference on this most vital point of
all the Gospel, this attempt to ignore,
deny, and remove the very foundationupon which the entire temple of God
fitly framed, is builded, shows either
that he does not appreciate the importance
of the question, or else that he
possesses so little of the spirit of Christ
as not to have the zeal for the Lord's
house and work and Word swallowing
up all other considerations and interests.
An appreciation of the value of the
death of Christ is all important as a
basis of entire consecration; hence the
prominence given it in the Word. It is
very important as a part of the truth
without which we cannot be sanctified.

We commend to all a careful study
of chapters VI and VIII, in "Food for
Thinking Christians" as a help on this
subject.

In conclusion--we have done our
duty by those of our readers who are
also readers of our contemporaries.
"He that hath an ear, let him hear";
and we feel convinced that only such
will hear with proper force and power
the Word of the Lord on this topic.
We have dealt with this subject at the
greater length because we believe that
this, which now assails those of "this
way," is but a ripple of the mighty
wave of unbelief in the cross of Christ
which is even now beginning to sweep
over the entire nominal Church. It is
clearly described by the Apostles as
the form of error which would be
prevalent in the last days of this age.
Our hope has been and is, that by clear,
forcible and plain statement, we might
help some to forearm themselves for
the conflict--putting on Christ as their
helmet, breastplate and shield.